LIBYA | A Western Disaster?

The 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s dictator, was widely hailed at the time as a major victory of the Arab Spring. However, it also led to a devastating civil war that has destroyed Libya and further destabilised the wider Middle East and North Africa. This has prompted many to ask whether we should now regard the decision to support the rebel groups as a foreign policy disaster.

Libya has a long and fascinating history stretching back into antiquity. However, when it became independent few were optimistic about its prospects. It was poor and undeveloped. However, the discover of oil in the late 1950s changed all that. But it also brought growing opposition to the country’s regime. This led to a military coup in 1969 that saw King Idris overthrown and a 27-year-old army office, Muammar Gaddafi, take over. Under his strange rule, the country adopted a unique form of Islamic socialism. And on the world stage, Libya became a state sponsor of terrorism. But by the 2000s, Gaddafi was was attempting to rehabilitate the country’s reputation. All this changed in 2011 with the Arab Spring. This led to major uprisings against the Libyan leader followed by NATO air strikes against the country. But while this eventually forced Gaddafi from power, it also led to a bitter and brutal nine-year civil war that decimated the country. Indeed, Barack Obama has said that the US failure to plan for the overthrow of Gaddafi was the greatest failure of his presidency. And a former head of French intelligence in the country has called it a Western foreign policy disaster. So, just what went so wrong?

*MY NEW BOOK!*
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know

*SUPPORT THE CHANNEL*
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay, and here I take an informed look at International Relations, conflict, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe. If you want more, including exclusive content and access to the channel Discord server, please consider becoming a Channel Member or support me through Patreon. I would greatly appreciate your support. Thank you!

00:00 Introduction and Titles
00:46 Libya and Regime Change in International Relations
02:03 Libya: Location, Population and Economics
03:06 History of Libya
04:13 Libya after Independence
05:10 Libya under Gaddafi
06:46 Gaddafi Gains International Acceptance
08:05 The Overthrow of Gaddafi
09:54 Libya’s Civil War
10:57 The Legacy of the Overthrown of Gaddafi
12:29 Was Overthrowing Gaddafi a Mistake?

*SOURCES AND FURTHER READING*
Lockerbie Trial Verdict 1999

*EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO*

*DISCLAIMERS*
- The contents of this video and any views expressed in it were not reviewed in advance nor determined by any outside persons or organisation.
- Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.

#Libya #Gaddafi #NATO

[JamesKerLindsay]

This is a conflict I have wanted to look at for a very long time. Libya has been one of the most complex civil wars of recent years. And it has prompted a lot of soul searching amongst observers. So, was it a mistake to get rid of Gaddafi? Or could he never be trusted and would have eventually become a problem again? As ever, I look forward to your thoughts and comments.

[klausunder]

the european "migrant crisis" was 100% exacerbated by the overthrowing of Gaddafi. Libya was a stable nation before his demise but now a vacuum of modern slavery and human trafficking has been left. His regime could've led to Libya being a great alternative to Russian oil and nat gas.

[deleoladeji]

This is a discussion in the West, but not anywhere else. In Africa, like in other places on earth, we know that Libyan war was premeditated by Nato and western leaders to overthrow Gaddafi. When six African leaders boarded a plane early in the conflict to go to Tripoli and mediate between warring parties, Nato bluntly told them that their plane would not be permitted to land. General Wesley Clark of Nato put it succinctly, US mapped out the wars to overthrow seven middle eastern governments by military power, starting immediately after 9/11. It was about dominance, hegemony, and resources.

[tapsontmlambo]

Regime change can be fatal within a country. It is important for foreign nations to respect other countries internal affairs.

[Loud-mouth]

The influence of US and Britain on African countries is painful

[orpheus]

Libyans asked for democracy and the got it. They got tired of free education free healthcare free housing

[elkanaajowi]

To the Western corporations, which I presume are now milking oil and pushing down endless loans to the country, the result is precisely what they wanted. Free-market, rule of law, and our way of life. This line never fails to get support; even if the reality is completely worse.

[electricVGC]

I think the takeaway was that countries shouldn't interfere in domestic governance through violence and assassinations

[FabledCity]

As someone who was on the ground there in 2011, I tend to think that if NATO air power had not been brought in Gaddafi may indeed have survived the initial conflict in the form of a rump state in Libya's northwest. But the peoples of Cyrenaica in the east, there was no turning back with or without Western military support. Also the UAE and Qatar were involved in supporting rebel factions right from the start and there is a hypothetical that if Western powers had not intervened the then emerging GCC powers eventually may have at some point. I met the Qatari defence minister on the ground in rural Tripolitania at the time as an indicator of how seriously the Qataris were taking this conflict. But the fact remains that neither the NTC, NATO, no the GCC had any concept of what a post Gaddafi Libyan state should look like.

[banto]

Foreign governments intervening to dispose a country's problematic leader has been tried over and over again across the middle east. In almost all cases, the result is worse than the problem they were trying to solve. After the disastrous results in Iraq, Egypt, and Libya, we can understand the great fear of toppling the genocidal dictator in Syria - since his replacement would probably be even worse.

[JustinZode]

Gadaffi was incredibly based. Rest in power, King.

[anthonyomoko]

Col Muammar Gaddafi will always live in the heart of all men of goodwill!

[mrgabagoo]

Same story different day. The West topples a strong man/regime in the Arab world without a clear and realistic plan for what comes next. Gaddafi had many negative sides, but a few positives too. The way he was eliminated by our proxies was as clear a demonstration of what was to come as one could wish for.

A disaster for Libya's living standards and internal stability, undoubtedly. However, for Western global policy it has been an unmitigated catastrophe. We have created a refugee and humanitarian disaster on our doorstep. We have indicated, once again, to any second or third rate power that their only serious guarantee of security is developing WMDs. The Russians took note of the mission creep and one more infamous example of Western hypocrisy and exceptionalism regarding the "rules based order." The events in Libya have confirmed in Russian decision making minds:
- The rules based order is a cover for Western 'do as I say, not as I do' realpolitik
- The West cannot be trusted and can only be negotiated with from a position of strength
- Strike first or be struck first
- The Western powers will act irresponsibly and without concern for the consequences for perceived short term gain
- If we do not protect our allies and friends to the hilt, the West will destroy them and finally us

[breaths]

History will remember him as a hero who stood against waning European imperialism.

[Bb]

The fall of Kadafi's regime is also suspected to have facilitated the uprising in northem Mali by releasing a big quantity of weapons in the Sahara region.

[JohnDoe-zoxn]

I didn't realize Gaddafi was 27 when he launched the coup. Thats really really impressive

[lerryperry]

@JamesKerLindsay I am a black man from Jamaica and my view on this issue and others like it is simply this: When a tyrant is oppressing his people in his country, it is the job of those people to overthrow him. There should be no outside interference. The only time that other countries should move against him is if he does the same thing that Hitler did in the 1930s. I rest my case.

[mladenmatosevic]

NATO air power acted far more then "no fly" mandate, it worked as close air support to destroy Libyan army and pro Gaddafi militias. And particularly problematic was that attack came when Gaddafi bowed to pressure and paid reparations. It showed to world that concessions to West are sign of weakness and only increase chance to be attacked. Only strong Russian support saved Syria. North Korea, Iran and others took notice.

[SouthernGirl]

"We firmly believe that NATO intervention in Libya led to the most devastating consequences. It destroyed the Libyan statehood, provoked the growth of terrorism and migration crisis. This should serve as a stark reminder of the real cost of 'regime-change' policies."
Russian Embassy

[srb]

I would still love to understand why the "international community" backed the muslim brotherhood in this story. It would also be interesting to hear your take on Khalifa Haftar who apparently spent quite a bit of time in the US before returning to Libya.